Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 3 (PNJ)

Anil Mehra v. State Of U. T. Chandigarh

2000-01-10

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. FIR No. 96 dated 8.6.1999 has been registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC on the complaint lodged by Anisha Mehra the wife of 1st petitioner-Anil Mehra wherein the following material allegations are found. 2. The marriage between the complainant and Anil Mehra was performed on 7.2.1993. The dowry articles were entrusted to Anil Mehra, Hari Om Mehra (father-in-law), and Kiran Mehra (mother-in-law of complainant) to be handed over to the complainant at matrimonial home. From the beginning, the petitioners and other accused showed their greed. One day, the complainant was informed by her husband that she had not brought sufficient dowry according to their expectations. Petitioners always demanded a car and Rs. 2 lakhs. About one month after the marriage, Anil Mehra wanted a new luxury car and so, the complainant should bring Rs. 2 lakhs. The refusal annoyed her husband who abused her, and even beat her. About two months after the marriage, the petitioners herein demanded Rs. 25 lakhs Bank guarantee for extending the business. When this was refused, the accused were annoyed and started torturing the complaint. In October, 1993, the petitioners demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- for extending their business which was met by the father of the complainant. That in June, 1993, the torture was so much that the complainant decided to end her life by swallowing sleeping pills. The 4th petitioner threatened to kill the complainant always. During April, 1997, when the complainant was unable to bear the torture of the accused, she lodged a complaint in Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, but each and every time the accused wanted to delay the matter by compromise. The written agreement states that the complainants husband will stay apart on the upper floor of the house. The complainant and accused started residing in one room from November, 1996, but all the dowry articles and jewellery were in the possession of petitioners 1 to 4. The first petitioner demanded a Kinetic Honda for his use and that was also met. In December, 1996, the 1st petitioner in order to kill the complainant, used to keep the gas open so that she could be burnt. On the persistent demand of accused 1 to 8, the father of the complainant gave a Maruti car CHK-5551 to the 1st petitioner. In December, 1996, the 1st petitioner in order to kill the complainant, used to keep the gas open so that she could be burnt. On the persistent demand of accused 1 to 8, the father of the complainant gave a Maruti car CHK-5551 to the 1st petitioner. On 23.3.1999, the complainant was fed up by the daily torture, and threat to her life and her infant child and, therefore, she came back to her parents house alongwith her child. She also lodged a complaint (DDR No. 31 dated 23.3.1999) at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, but no action has been taken. In April, 1999, the 3rd petitioner telephoned the complainant and demanded Rs. 1 lakh in order to deposit the same in Court against the dishonoured cheque. The complainant and her husband withdrew Rs. 50,000/- from the account of the complainant and the complainant gave the money to the accused. All the petitioners demanded cash from her parents from time-to-time and the complainants parents gave cheques as follows: 3. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Chandigarh for bail in anticipation of arrest, but their petition has been dismissed. That is why the petitioners have approached this Court for the same relief. 4 I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage had taken place on 7.2.1993, that the complainant had left for Australia in February, 1995 and had returned to India in July, 1995. He also contends that the 1st petitioner (husband) had also left for Australia and returned to India in September, 1995. According to the petitioners, in 1996, the 1st petitioner started living separately from the other petitioners in House No. 520, Sector 36, Chandigarh. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that the complainant used to come during the nights and on 27.3.1997, the 1st petitioner had even lodged a complaint at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh (DDR No. 32) that the complainant remained away from house for 4 days. The Counsel for the petitioners contends that the police even effected a compromise. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that on 28.3.1998 and 8.6.1998, the complainant lodged complaints with police that the 1st petitioner was not supporting her and then again, the 1st petitioner was summoned and a compromise affected. The Counsel for the petitioners contends that the police even effected a compromise. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that on 28.3.1998 and 8.6.1998, the complainant lodged complaints with police that the 1st petitioner was not supporting her and then again, the 1st petitioner was summoned and a compromise affected. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in these complaints, the complainant had not mentioned that the petitioners demanded any dowry or misappropriated it. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is only on 23.3.1999 the complainant lodged a complaint in Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh regarding demand of dowry, but no action was taken on the same. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, petitioners 2 to 4 had even shifted from Chandigarh to Panchkula and the present complaint has been filed on 3.6.1999, on which the FIR has been registered on 8.6.1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that all the other co-accused have been released on bail. He also contends that after 6 years of marriage only, now vague allegations have been made without details and that on summons by the Sub-Inspector, all the petitioners except Kiran Mehra (3rd petitioner) have even joined investigation. 6. The learned Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh contends that the dowry articles have not been returned and for affecting the recovery of dowry articles, the petitioners have to be interrogated in custody. 7. The learned Counsel for the complainant contends that even during the pendency of this petition, the petitioners have misused the concession of bail. According to him, the complainant and her parents are being threatened by the petitioners regarding which the complainants father had also given a complaint Annexure R/2/1 on 15.6.1999. The learned Counsel for the complainant also contends that the complainant herself was, while she was coming in a car, stopped and attacked by Hari Om Mehra, Anil Mehra, Ashwani Mehra, Raman Mehra and beaten. She had also reported that due to the thrashing and heavy beating, she was suffering from severe pain in her stomach and head. The copy of the complaint given by her has been produced as Annexure R/2/2onwhichDDRNo. 32 dated 30.8.1999 has been registered. She had also reported that due to the thrashing and heavy beating, she was suffering from severe pain in her stomach and head. The copy of the complaint given by her has been produced as Annexure R/2/2onwhichDDRNo. 32 dated 30.8.1999 has been registered. The complainant has also produced Annexure R/2/3 which shows that on 30.8.1999, she had gone to the Hospital where she had complained of pain in the abdomen, but Annexure R/2/3 shows that except what the complainant had told, there was no external injury at all. Pointing out the fact that the petitioners have misused the concession of bail, the learned Counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. The learned Counsel for the complainant even contends that the interim bail granted to the petitioners should be cancelled. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant is unreliable and that the complaint lodged by her to show that the petitioners had misused the concession of bail, is not true is evident from one fact that though she has stated in the complaint dated 3.6.1999 that on 23.3.1999, she was fed up with the torture and threat on her life, she had come to her parents house, she has also stated that a month later, i.e. 21.4.1999, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the accused by cheque. 8. Without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and the offences which the petitioners are alleged to have committed, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Simply on the allegation that the dowry articles are with petitioners 1 to 4 and they have to be recovered from them, the petitioners cannot be denied bail especially when in the earlier part of the FIR, the complainant has stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to petitioners 1 to 3, whereas in the latter part of the FIR, she has stated that the dowry articles are with petitioners 1 to 4. Further, as pointed out already, the marriage had taken place in 1993. The complainant and her husband had even started living separately. Further, as pointed out already, the marriage had taken place in 1993. The complainant and her husband had even started living separately. Therefore, the allegation that the dowry articles have not been returned inspite of the lapse of six years, is a matter which will have to be decided at the trial. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. If the petitioners are needed for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice to them giving them sufficient time to join investigation and on such notice, the petitioners shall join investigation. The petitioners shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.